The Union Steamship Company of Philadelphia, Claimants and Owners of the Steamship Pennsylvania, Her Tackle Appellants v. the New York and Virginia Steamship Company

Citation16 L.Ed. 699,24 How. 307,65 U.S. 307
PartiesTHE UNION STEAMSHIP COMPANY OF PHILADELPHIA, CLAIMANTS AND OWNERS OF THE STEAMSHIP PENNSYLVANIA, HER TACKLE, &C., APPELLANTS, v. THE NEW YORK AND VIRGINIA STEAMSHIP COMPANY
Decision Date01 December 1860
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the eastern district of Virginia, sitting in admiralty.

It was a case of collision which occurred between the steamship Jamestown and the steamship Pennsylvania, the libel being filed by the owners of the former. The collision took place some few miles below the port of Norfolk, in Virginia, under circumstances which are freely stated in the opinion of the court.

The District Court decreed in favor of the libellants, and assessed the damages at $1,893.08, with interest from 1st of February, 1855, till paid, and the Circuit Court affirmed the decree.

Upon an appeal to this court it was submitted on printed argument by Mr. Kane for the appellants, and argued by Mr. Watson for the appellees.

Mr. Kane contended that the evidence justified the conclusion that the collision was the result of inevitable accident, arising from the intense fog which had settled upon the Elizabeth river, which position was denied by Mr. Watson. The arguments could not be explained without a reference to the testimony, which was quite voluminous.

Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the eastern district of Virginia, sitting in admiralty. The libel was filed in the District Court, by the appellees, on the thirteenth day of June, 1855. It was a proceeding in rem against the steamship Pennsylvania, and was instituted to recover compensation for certain damage done to the steamship Jamestown, by means of a collision which occurred between those steamers in Elizabeth river, on the night of the seventh of January, 1855, some five or six miles below the port of Norfolk, in the State of Virginia. At the time of the collision, the Jamestown was on her regular weekly trip from the port of Norfolk to Richmond, in the same State, and the Pennsylvania was proceeding up the river to Norfolk, in the prosecution of her regular semi-monthly trip from Philadelphia to her place of destination. Libellants allege that the Jamestown was pursuing her usual and proper course down the river, and that the collision occurred in consequence of the improper and unskillful management of those in charge of the other steamer. Process was duly served, and the respondents appeared and answered to the suit. They admitted the collision, but alleged, in effect, that it occurred in consequence of the intense darkness of the night, occasioned by a dense fog, without any such negligence or fault as is alleged in the libel, and in spite of every possible precaution on the part of those in charge of their steamer to prevent it. A decree was entered for the libellants in the District Court, which was affirmed, on appeal, in the Circuit Court, and thereupon the respondents appealed to this court. It is now conceded by the respondents that the collision was not occasioned by any fault on the part of those in charge of the injured vessel, but it is insisted in their behalf that the colliding steamer was also without fault, and that the collision was the result of inevitable accident. To establish that defence, they rely entirely upon the character of the night, as shown by the evidence, and the circumstances attending the disaster. From the evidence, it appears that the Jamestown left the wharf at Norfolk on the seventh of January, 1855, about eleven or half past eleven o'clock at night, as alleged in the libel. When she started there was a thick fog in the harbor, but she met with no difficulty in passing out, and it so far cleared away in about half an hour that those in charge of her deck, as she proceeded down the river, could see the lights and even the hulls of vessels ahead, and the land on the eastern shore. Several witnesses also testify that the moon had risen, and that stars were occasionally visible, though they admit that it was still quite foggy, and that there was a heavy mist on the water. Two competent look-outs were accordingly stationed at the usual place in the forecastle, and the signal-lights of the steamer were properly displayed. Those precautions had been taken at the time the steamer left the wharf, but about the time she passed the naval hospital, the master, as he had been accustomed to do on similar occasions, left the quarter-deck, and took a position in the rigging of the steamer, some ten feet above the hurricane-deck. Leaving the look-outs properly stationed in the forecastle to perform their usual duties, he doubtless chose that more elevated situation to get a less obstructed view of distant objects, and he testifies that he could then see a mile and a half ahead, and the evidence furnishes no good reason to doubt the truth of his statement.

Intending to take the eastern side of the channel, another precaution also became necessary, so as not to incur the hazard of running the steamer aground; and to guard against any such danger, he directed the mate to heave the lead at short intervals, and to report to him the soundings; and the order was faithfully obeyed. Having taken these precautions, he continued to prosecute the voyage at a moderate rate of speed, sometimes stopping the engine when the fog shut in, and occasionally ringing the bell and sounding the whistle; and the steamer, pursuing her regular course, rounded Lambert's point in perfect safety, passing so near to the buoy located there that it was seen by the master from his position in the rigging, and particularly noticed. On arriving there, it was necessary to change the course of the steamer; and inasmuch as he had noticed the buoy, he was enabled to perform that duty without...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • Petition of M/V Elaine Jones
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • June 18, 1973
    ...in doing "everything which an experienced mariner could do, adopting ordinary caution." The Union S.S. Co. v. The New York & Virginia S.S. Co., 65 U.S. 307, 313, 16 L.Ed. 699, 701 (1861). II. Liability as between Canal and Mrs. Canal was found liable to Mrs. Griffith as personal representat......
  • McCardle v. George B. Peck Dry Goods Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 29, 1917
    ... ... States v. Railway, 189 F. 471; Steamship Co. v ... Steamship Co., 24 How. 307. (3) Under ... case is followed in Connell v. Western Union Tel ... Co., 116 Mo. 34, 22 S.W. 345; Spohn v ... ...
  • Petition of Canal Barge Company
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi
    • February 26, 1971
    ...Oil Co., 377 F.2d 724 (5 Cir. 1967); Boudoin v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 281 F.2d 81 (5 Cir. 1960); Union Steamship Co. v. N. Y. & Va. Steamship Co., 65 U.S. 307, 16 L.Ed. 699 (1860). 3. Where a moving vessel collides with a fixed object, there is a presumption that the moving vessel is at f......
  • PANAMA TRANSPORT COMPANY v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • August 16, 1957
    ...nautical skill, to prevent the occurrence of the accident.' * * *" The Union Steamship Company of Philadelphia v. The New York & Virginia Steamship Co., 24 How. 307, at page 313, 65 U.S. 307, at page 313, 16 L.Ed. 699. In order for the Panama Transport Company to recover damages against the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT